Constructive challenge: employee voice
performance
Auburn University, Montgomery
Auburn University, Montgomery
Auburn University, Montgomery
ABSTRACT
This study examines the effect
and task performance) on supervisory reward recommendations. In a laboratory setting, n=216
research participants engaged in a managerial
that was created to simulate the types of decisions that managers are faced with on a daily basis.
While performing this task, participants were
simulated subordinates engaging in high or low levels of voice, helping and task performance.
After completion of the simulation, p
which a particular subordinate was worthy of a variety of rewards including
a promotion and readiness for valuable t
performance, helping and voice each contributed independently to
recommendations. This finding supports the growing body of literature on the importance of
employee voice on rater assessments of employee contribution to the o
Keywords: contextual performance, organizational citizenship behavior, voice, extra
behavior, reward recommendations
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
Constructive challenge: employee voice, helpfulness and task
performance on organizational rewards
D. Scott Kiker
Auburn University, Montgomery
Mary B. Kiker
Auburn University, Montgomery
Michael Perry
Auburn University, Montgomery
This study examines the effects of three classes of employee behavior (voice, helpfulness
and task performance) on supervisory reward recommendations. In a laboratory setting, n=216
pants engaged in a managerial simulation where they worked on an inbasket task
created to simulate the types of decisions that managers are faced with on a daily basis.
While performing this task, participants were interrupted with videotaped behavioral episodes
subordinates engaging in high or low levels of voice, helping and task performance.
After completion of the simulation, participants made recommendations regarding
lar subordinate was worthy of a variety of rewards including an increase in salary
for valuable training opportunities. Results revealed that task
performance, helping and voice each contributed independently to these rater reward
This finding supports the growing body of literature on the importance of
employee voice on rater assessments of employee contribution to the organization.
contextual performance, organizational citizenship behavior, voice, extra
reward recommendations
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 1
and task
of three classes of employee behavior (voice, helpfulness
and task performance) on supervisory reward recommendations. In a laboratory setting, n=216
where they worked on an inbasket task
created to simulate the types of decisions that managers are faced with on a daily basis.
behavioral episodes of
subordinates engaging in high or low levels of voice, helping and task performance.
articipants made recommendations regarding the extent to
an increase in salary,
that task
reward
This finding supports the growing body of literature on the importance of
rganization.
contextual performance, organizational citizenship behavior, voice, extra-role
INTRODUCTION
Employee behavior at work is often evaluated and rewarded in a variety of ways.
Perhaps the most widespread form of this evaluation i
conducted by their supervisor. A favorable rating on such an instrument can have a positive
effect on one’s career, as these evaluations are often tied to more distal rewards
because of their widespread use in determining
managers in determining promotion decisions.
performance appraisal are thought to be a fair
contribution or worth to the organization.
instead as a tool with which managers may
Sims & Gioia, 1987). The implication of Longnecker et al.’s (1987) survey research is that
managers understand the link between their performance appraisal ratings and
subordinates might receive and are
punish their employees through the manipulation of these
to test the effects of three types of employee behavior
voice on managerial reward recommendations.
supports the importance of task performance and helpfulness on measures of employe
contribution to the organization (i.e., job performance), far less is known about the contribution
of employee voice. Thus, this study was conducted in an effort to build
of literature on employee voice as an important dimension of
organization as well as examine its effect on a direct measure of supervisory reward
recommendations.
Task Performance and Helpfulness
There is a rich theoretical and empirical literature that supports the contribution of
task performance and helping to organizational effectivenes
their broader discussion on distinguishing between task and contextual performance, argue that
task performance and helping each contribute
mechanism through which each contributes to effective organizational functioning is different.
Task performance contributes to organizational effectiveness through its direct impact on the
technical core of the organization
those that represent specific steps in
outputs (i.e., a bank teller cashes a check for a depositor)
all of the underlying planning, supervising and other activities that
technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
contribute to the technical core directly. Instead,
thought to contribute to effective organizational functioning
fostering a more positive working environment (Borman & Mot
according to this perspective, helpfulness at work should make the technic
organization function more smoothly.
Helping behavior is perhaps the one common component of all of the efforts to examine
the effects of nontask behavior on overall performance ratings
2008). As Whiting and colleagues
contextual performance dimension, it is also a core construct in the
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
Employee behavior at work is often evaluated and rewarded in a variety of ways.
Perhaps the most widespread form of this evaluation is through a formal performance appraisal
conducted by their supervisor. A favorable rating on such an instrument can have a positive
effect on one’s career, as these evaluations are often tied to more distal rewards fo
use in determining allocation of pay raises and their use by
promotion decisions. As the name implies, the results of a formal
thought to be a fair representation of an employee’s actual
contribution or worth to the organization. Sometimes; however, these formal app
managers may reward or punish their subordinates (Longnecker,
. The implication of Longnecker et al.’s (1987) survey research is that
managers understand the link between their performance appraisal ratings and the rewards
are sometimes inclined to express their desires to reward or
punish their employees through the manipulation of these performance ratings. This study
of employee behavior-- task performance, helping and employee
rial reward recommendations. While an increasing amount of evidence
supports the importance of task performance and helpfulness on measures of employe
contribution to the organization (i.e., job performance), far less is known about the contribution
Thus, this study was conducted in an effort to build upon the growing body
of literature on employee voice as an important dimension of employee contribution to the
as well as examine its effect on a direct measure of supervisory reward
Task Performance and Helpfulness
here is a rich theoretical and empirical literature that supports the contribution of
task performance and helping to organizational effectiveness. Borman and Motowidlo (1993), in
their broader discussion on distinguishing between task and contextual performance, argue that
task performance and helping each contribute positively to the organization; however, the
mechanism through which each contributes to effective organizational functioning is different.
to organizational effectiveness through its direct impact on the
technical core of the organization. Task performance includes a myriad of behaviors including
represent specific steps in facilitating the transformation of organizational
outputs (i.e., a bank teller cashes a check for a depositor), actual distribution of the product
all of the underlying planning, supervising and other activities that “service and maintain” the
technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Helping behavior, on the other hand, does not
contribute to the technical core directly. Instead, pervasive helping behaviors at work are
thought to contribute to effective organizational functioning more indirectly, mainly
fostering a more positive working environment (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). In essence,
helpfulness at work should make the technical core of the
more smoothly.
Helping behavior is perhaps the one common component of all of the efforts to examine
the effects of nontask behavior on overall performance ratings (Whiting, Podsakoff & Pierce,
2008). As Whiting and colleagues point out, in addition to being featured prominently in the
contextual performance dimension, it is also a core construct in the Organizational Citizenship
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 2
Employee behavior at work is often evaluated and rewarded in a variety of ways.
s through a formal performance appraisal
conducted by their supervisor. A favorable rating on such an instrument can have a positive
for employees
their use by
As the name implies, the results of a formal
representation of an employee’s actual
these formal appraisals are used
(Longnecker,
. The implication of Longnecker et al.’s (1987) survey research is that
the rewards their
express their desires to reward or
This study seeks
task performance, helping and employee
While an increasing amount of evidence
supports the importance of task performance and helpfulness on measures of employee
contribution to the organization (i.e., job performance), far less is known about the contribution
upon the growing body
employee contribution to the
as well as examine its effect on a direct measure of supervisory reward
here is a rich theoretical and empirical literature that supports the contribution of both
s. Borman and Motowidlo (1993), in
their broader discussion on distinguishing between task and contextual performance, argue that
; however, the
mechanism through which each contributes to effective organizational functioning is different.
to organizational effectiveness through its direct impact on the
Task performance includes a myriad of behaviors including
organizational inputs to
, actual distribution of the product and
“service and maintain” the
Helping behavior, on the other hand, does not
pervasive helping behaviors at work are
, mainly through
In essence,
al core of the
Helping behavior is perhaps the one common component of all of the efforts to examine
Whiting, Podsakoff & Pierce,
in addition to being featured prominently in the
Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB) literature. Here,
1983) and altruism, courtesy, cheerleading and peacemaking (Organ, 1988).
heavily emphasized in the behavioral domain of
Motowidlo, 1996; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999).
variety of terminologies in the past, a
argument that employee helpfulness contributes substantially to
For example, MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991)
and OCB in samples of salespeople and insu
that OCBs contributed as much to overall performance ratings as did task performance. A third
study (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1993) examining petrochemical salespeople revealed that
OCBs contributed even more than did task performance in explaining variability in supervisors’
assessments of job performance. Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994)
their study of Air Force mechanics. T
performance contributed roughly equally to supervisor ratings of employee job performance.
The results of these studies and others
Borman, White & Dorsey, 1995; Allen & Rush, 1998)
raters take into account employee helpfulness in making assessments of employee job
performance.
While much evidence has accumulated on the impact of helpfulness on overall
assessments of employee job performance, comparatively
these behaviors on managers’ inclinations to recommend their employees for valued rewards.
An early study conducted by Park and Sims (1989) showed that employees who engaged in
various altruistic acts (i.e., volunteering to
to be recommended for compensation increases
impact of helping on rater reward recommendations
colleagues in a series of managerial simulations (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Johnson, Erez,
Kiker & Motowidlo, 2002). Kiker and Motowidlo (1999)
which raters evaluated a simulated subordinate after watching videotaped depictions
subordinate’s task performance and helpfulness were manipulated. They found that both task
performance and helpfulness each had a main effect on rater
also found a significant interaction effect, suggesting that helpfulness pays o
who are high in task performance and that task performance pays off more for people who are
also helpful. Similarly, Johnson, et al. (2002) also uses a managerial simulation where
helpfulness was manipulated and found that in each of the
had a significant main effect on rater
Voice
The definition of employee
reviewing the literature, Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington and Ackers (2004) note this
inconsistency and argue that researchers have used “voice” to describe
ranging from using grievance procedur
management. The definition used in
(2001), who define employee voice as “constructive change
improve the situation” (p. 326). More specifically, voice represents
behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
. Here, it shows up in dimensions of altruism (Smith, Organ, & Near,
1983) and altruism, courtesy, cheerleading and peacemaking (Organ, 1988). Helping is also
the behavioral domain of interpersonal facilitation (Van Scotter &
; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999). While helpfulness has been described using a
variety of terminologies in the past, a substantial amount of empirical evidence supports the
argument that employee helpfulness contributes substantially to overall job performance ratings
MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991) examined the effects of task performance
and OCB in samples of salespeople and insurance agents. In each instance, their results showed
that OCBs contributed as much to overall performance ratings as did task performance. A third
study (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1993) examining petrochemical salespeople revealed that
ted even more than did task performance in explaining variability in supervisors’
assessments of job performance. Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) found similar results in
Air Force mechanics. They found that contextual performance and
performance contributed roughly equally to supervisor ratings of employee job performance.
The results of these studies and others (cf. Werner, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo,
Borman, White & Dorsey, 1995; Allen & Rush, 1998) have led most researchers to conclude that
raters take into account employee helpfulness in making assessments of employee job
While much evidence has accumulated on the impact of helpfulness on overall
f employee job performance, comparatively less is known about the impact of
nclinations to recommend their employees for valued rewards.
An early study conducted by Park and Sims (1989) showed that employees who engaged in
various altruistic acts (i.e., volunteering to serve on a United Way committee) were more likely
recommended for compensation increases and for promotion by raters. In addition,
reward recommendations has been examined by Kiker and his
nagerial simulations (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Johnson, Erez,
Kiker and Motowidlo (1999) conducted a managerial simulation in
which raters evaluated a simulated subordinate after watching videotaped depictions
dinate’s task performance and helpfulness were manipulated. They found that both task
performance and helpfulness each had a main effect on rater reward recommendations
also found a significant interaction effect, suggesting that helpfulness pays off more for those
who are high in task performance and that task performance pays off more for people who are
also helpful. Similarly, Johnson, et al. (2002) also uses a managerial simulation where
helpfulness was manipulated and found that in each of the two studies they report, helpfulness
had a significant main effect on rater reward recommendations.
employee voice used in the literature has not been consistent. In
reviewing the literature, Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington and Ackers (2004) note this
inconsistency and argue that researchers have used “voice” to describe employee
ging from using grievance procedures, engaging in collective bargaining, to partnering with
management. The definition used in this paper is the one proposed by LePine and Van Dyne
define employee voice as “constructive change-oriented communication intended
. More specifically, voice represents a form of “promotive
behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 3
it shows up in dimensions of altruism (Smith, Organ, & Near,
Helping is also
Van Scotter &
While helpfulness has been described using a
evidence supports the
overall job performance ratings.
examined the effects of task performance
rance agents. In each instance, their results showed
that OCBs contributed as much to overall performance ratings as did task performance. A third
study (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1993) examining petrochemical salespeople revealed that
ted even more than did task performance in explaining variability in supervisors’
found similar results in
hey found that contextual performance and task
performance contributed roughly equally to supervisor ratings of employee job performance.
(cf. Werner, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996;
rchers to conclude that
raters take into account employee helpfulness in making assessments of employee job
While much evidence has accumulated on the impact of helpfulness on overall
ss is known about the impact of
nclinations to recommend their employees for valued rewards.
An early study conducted by Park and Sims (1989) showed that employees who engaged in
serve on a United Way committee) were more likely
by raters. In addition, the
has been examined by Kiker and his
nagerial simulations (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Johnson, Erez,
conducted a managerial simulation in
which raters evaluated a simulated subordinate after watching videotaped depictions in which the
dinate’s task performance and helpfulness were manipulated. They found that both task
reward recommendations. They
ff more for those
who are high in task performance and that task performance pays off more for people who are
also helpful. Similarly, Johnson, et al. (2002) also uses a managerial simulation where
two studies they report, helpfulness
the literature has not been consistent. In
reviewing the literature, Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington and Ackers (2004) note this
employee behaviors
to partnering with
LePine and Van Dyne
oriented communication intended to
a form of “promotive
ed to improve rather than
merely criticize” the status quo (Van Dyne & Le
to helpfulness in that neither contributes to the technical core directly. Instead, each
to the environment in which the technical core must function.
cooperation and conforming to the status quo.
working relationships. In contrast, voice behavior is a
quo. This may lead to upsetting the interpersonal relationships that exist inside an organization
but they ultimately help to clarify employee role structures in a dynamic environment, increase
employee comfort and confidence, and reduce employee disagreement over
and responsibilities within the organization
Whiting, et al. (2008) offer three possible reasons why those
constructive challenge that voice represents might be
First, organizations frequently find themselves facing dynamic competitive environm
change is increasingly necessary for survival. Employees who actively engage in constructive
attempts for change should facilitate this. Second,
and make “valuable suggestions”
Finally, voice behavior is likely viewed by mana
commitment to the organization,
(Whiting, et al., 2008). While little
available is generally supportive
employees, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) collected ratings of employee task performance,
helping and voice and correlated them with supervisor assessments of overall job performance.
They found that each class of behavior contributed to these overall performance judgmen
Similarly, Whiting, et al. (2008) conducted a lab study using written descriptions
behaviors manipulating high and low levels of task performance, helping and employee voice.
They found that voice contributed to overall assessments of job
that of task performance and helping. Taken together, both conceptual and empirical support
exists that employee voice is distinct from both task performance and helping and that these
behaviors are likely to be rewarded by t
Current Study
In light of the growing body of evidence supporting the
voice on raters’ assessments of overall job performance,
research in several ways. First, the vast majority of research in this area relies on supervisor
ratings of employee task performance, helpfulness, voice and overall performance. If the same
supervisor makes ratings on task perf
assessment of overall performance, it is very possible that a type of halo effect might artificially
inflate the observed correlations among the variables. Even in designs that use separate
supervisors to make ratings of the independent and dependent variables, as in the study done by
Van Dyne and LePine (1998), it is still possible that supervisors making ratings of a given
performance dimension (i.e., task performance) will use elements of other dime
helping and voice) in making those ratings. This study was designed to eliminate this
as a possible explanation for the observed results
performance were used, rather than ratings of performance, in testing the hypotheses
investigation. Second, there is a clear reliance in past research on exploring the effects of
helpfulness and voice on managerial assessments of employee job performance. Exclusive
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
criticize” the status quo (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. 109). In this way, v
neither contributes to the technical core directly. Instead, each
he technical core must function. Helpful behaviors emphasize
cooperation and conforming to the status quo. They serve to facilitate harmony and positive
working relationships. In contrast, voice behavior is a constructive force for changing the status
lead to upsetting the interpersonal relationships that exist inside an organization
ltimately help to clarify employee role structures in a dynamic environment, increase
employee comfort and confidence, and reduce employee disagreement over the diffusion
and responsibilities within the organization (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).
hiting, et al. (2008) offer three possible reasons why those who engage in
constructive challenge that voice represents might be viewed positively by their supervisor
First, organizations frequently find themselves facing dynamic competitive environm
change is increasingly necessary for survival. Employees who actively engage in constructive
attempts for change should facilitate this. Second, they suggest that “employees who speak up
” help the manager perform his or her job more effectively.
viewed by managers as being illustrative of an employee’s
commitment to the organization, which is in decline overall, but is related to job performance
While little empirical evidence exists on voice, the evidence that is
of its positive impact. For instance, in a field study of 597
an Dyne and LePine (1998) collected ratings of employee task performance,
helping and voice and correlated them with supervisor assessments of overall job performance.
They found that each class of behavior contributed to these overall performance judgmen
Similarly, Whiting, et al. (2008) conducted a lab study using written descriptions
high and low levels of task performance, helping and employee voice.
voice contributed to overall assessments of job performance above and beyond
that of task performance and helping. Taken together, both conceptual and empirical support
exists that employee voice is distinct from both task performance and helping and that these
behaviors are likely to be rewarded by their supervisors.
the growing body of evidence supporting the positive effect of helping and
f overall job performance, this study seeks to build upon prior
First, the vast majority of research in this area relies on supervisor
ratings of employee task performance, helpfulness, voice and overall performance. If the same
supervisor makes ratings on task performance, helpfulness and voice and then also makes the
sessment of overall performance, it is very possible that a type of halo effect might artificially
inflate the observed correlations among the variables. Even in designs that use separate
s to make ratings of the independent and dependent variables, as in the study done by
Van Dyne and LePine (1998), it is still possible that supervisors making ratings of a given
performance dimension (i.e., task performance) will use elements of other dimensions (i.e.,
helping and voice) in making those ratings. This study was designed to eliminate this
for the observed results because directly manipulated levels of
rather than ratings of performance, in testing the hypotheses
Second, there is a clear reliance in past research on exploring the effects of
helpfulness and voice on managerial assessments of employee job performance. Exclusive
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 4
In this way, voice is similar
neither contributes to the technical core directly. Instead, each contributes
Helpful behaviors emphasize
They serve to facilitate harmony and positive
force for changing the status
lead to upsetting the interpersonal relationships that exist inside an organization,
ltimately help to clarify employee role structures in a dynamic environment, increase
the diffusion of tasks
who engage in the
viewed positively by their supervisor.
First, organizations frequently find themselves facing dynamic competitive environments where
change is increasingly necessary for survival. Employees who actively engage in constructive
employees who speak up”
help the manager perform his or her job more effectively.
f an employee’s
but is related to job performance
empirical evidence exists on voice, the evidence that is
. For instance, in a field study of 597
an Dyne and LePine (1998) collected ratings of employee task performance,
helping and voice and correlated them with supervisor assessments of overall job performance.
They found that each class of behavior contributed to these overall performance judgments.
Similarly, Whiting, et al. (2008) conducted a lab study using written descriptions of employee
high and low levels of task performance, helping and employee voice.
performance above and beyond
that of task performance and helping. Taken together, both conceptual and empirical support
exists that employee voice is distinct from both task performance and helping and that these
of helping and
to build upon prior
First, the vast majority of research in this area relies on supervisor
ratings of employee task performance, helpfulness, voice and overall performance. If the same
ormance, helpfulness and voice and then also makes the
sessment of overall performance, it is very possible that a type of halo effect might artificially
inflate the observed correlations among the variables. Even in designs that use separate
s to make ratings of the independent and dependent variables, as in the study done by
Van Dyne and LePine (1998), it is still possible that supervisors making ratings of a given
nsions (i.e.,
helping and voice) in making those ratings. This study was designed to eliminate this halo effect
because directly manipulated levels of
rather than ratings of performance, in testing the hypotheses under
Second, there is a clear reliance in past research on exploring the effects of
helpfulness and voice on managerial assessments of employee job performance. Exclusive
reliance on measures of overall performance
behaviors on managers’ decisions to recommend their subordinates for various rewards.
study seeks to capture the observation
performance appraisals as accurate measures of employ
them instead as a mechanism with which to
dependent variable measure in this study
increases, promotions and recommendations to participate in “fast track” training opportunities
to better capture this distinction.
(1999) addresses the problem of artifactually high intercorrelations between performance
dimensions through directly manipulating levels of task performance and helping as well as
adopting a focus on rewards, they do not manipulate and test the contribution of employee voice
on these decisions. Finally, while Whiting, et al. (2008) directly manipulate and test the
combined effects of task performance, helping and voice, they also focu
measures of overall job performance, not rewards. In addition, they manipulated these variables
using written descriptions of employee behavior presented to participants with no irrelevant
information that might make the rating environmen
environment in which real managers make real decisions.
videotaped depictions of employee behavior
focus on a cognitively engaging, yet irreleva
closely mimics a real world decision
employee behavior represent only a small proportion of their duties.
Overall, this study tests the effects of task performance, helping and voice on supervisory
reward recommendations in a cognitively engaging, ambiguous rating environment that more
closely resembles real-world decision making.
dimensionality of job performance, as well as the body of
is expected that task performance, helping and voice will each have a main effect on rater
recommendations. More formally, the hypotheses under investigation in
follows:
Hypothesis 1: Manipulated task performance will have a main effect on rater reward
recommendations.
Hypothesis 2: Manipulated helpfulness will have a main
recommendations.
Hypothesis 3: Manipulated voice
METHOD
The sample consisted of undergraduate st
courses in a small regional university
points to participate in the study
managers go about making day-to
approximately 25 and the sample was
weeks and each session lasted one hour and fifteen minutes.
the study, participants were introduced to their
1995; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999)
task on which they should focus.
adopt the role of Leslie Wilder, who was in charge of a sizable governmental contracting office.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
ance on measures of overall performance might not directly capture the effects of these
managers’ decisions to recommend their subordinates for various rewards.
observation made by Longnecker et al. (1987) regarding using
performance appraisals as accurate measures of employee value to the organization versus
them instead as a mechanism with which to reward and punish employees. Accordingly, the
dependent variable measure in this study directly measures reward recommendations
and recommendations to participate in “fast track” training opportunities
Third, while the study conducted by Kiker & Motowidlo
(1999) addresses the problem of artifactually high intercorrelations between performance
dimensions through directly manipulating levels of task performance and helping as well as
they do not manipulate and test the contribution of employee voice
on these decisions. Finally, while Whiting, et al. (2008) directly manipulate and test the
combined effects of task performance, helping and voice, they also focus exclusively on
measures of overall job performance, not rewards. In addition, they manipulated these variables
written descriptions of employee behavior presented to participants with no irrelevant
information that might make the rating environment more closely simulate the type of
environment in which real managers make real decisions. In the study presented here,
videotaped depictions of employee behavior were used and participants were encourage
focus on a cognitively engaging, yet irrelevant, inbasket task. It was thought that
closely mimics a real world decision-making environment whereby managers’ observations of
employee behavior represent only a small proportion of their duties.
the effects of task performance, helping and voice on supervisory
in a cognitively engaging, ambiguous rating environment that more
world decision making. Based on the accumulated evidence
ance, as well as the body of empirical evidence discussed above, it
that task performance, helping and voice will each have a main effect on rater
More formally, the hypotheses under investigation in this study are as
Hypothesis 1: Manipulated task performance will have a main effect on rater reward
helpfulness will have a main effect on rater reward
Hypothesis 3: Manipulated voice will have a main effect on rater reward recommendations.
The sample consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in upper division management
university in the southeast. These students were offered extra credit
which, they were told, was being conducted to examine how
to-day decisions. The average age of student participants was
25 and the sample was 52% female. Lab sessions were conducted over several
weeks and each session lasted one hour and fifteen minutes. After being told of the purpose of
were introduced to their inbasket assignment (see Mero & Motowidlo,
1995; Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999). They were told that the inbasket assignment
task on which they should focus. In performing their inbasket duties, students were asked to
adopt the role of Leslie Wilder, who was in charge of a sizable governmental contracting office.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 5
might not directly capture the effects of these
managers’ decisions to recommend their subordinates for various rewards. This
made by Longnecker et al. (1987) regarding using
ee value to the organization versus using
Accordingly, the
reward recommendations such as pay
and recommendations to participate in “fast track” training opportunities
Third, while the study conducted by Kiker & Motowidlo
(1999) addresses the problem of artifactually high intercorrelations between performance
dimensions through directly manipulating levels of task performance and helping as well as
they do not manipulate and test the contribution of employee voice
on these decisions. Finally, while Whiting, et al. (2008) directly manipulate and test the
s exclusively on
measures of overall job performance, not rewards. In addition, they manipulated these variables
written descriptions of employee behavior presented to participants with no irrelevant
t more closely simulate the type of
presented here,
encouraged to
that this more
making environment whereby managers’ observations of
the effects of task performance, helping and voice on supervisory
in a cognitively engaging, ambiguous rating environment that more
Based on the accumulated evidence for the
cal evidence discussed above, it
that task performance, helping and voice will each have a main effect on rater reward
this study are as
Hypothesis 1: Manipulated task performance will have a main effect on rater reward
will have a main effect on rater reward recommendations.
enrolled in upper division management
were offered extra credit
which, they were told, was being conducted to examine how
The average age of student participants was
52% female. Lab sessions were conducted over several
After being told of the purpose of
see Mero & Motowidlo,
was the primary
In performing their inbasket duties, students were asked to
adopt the role of Leslie Wilder, who was in charge of a sizable governmental contracting office.
As Leslie Wilder, they were provided with multiple tasks to complete. These tasks included
such things as dealing with angry cust
requests, filling out expense reports, reviewing company policies and procedures, etc. The
materials consisted of far more than students could complete in the time allowe
told that they should go through it as they would if they were Leslie Wilder
the task, as well as the prioritizing
closely approximate a typical manager’s duties in
1995).
While working on the inbasket materials, students were occasionally interrupted by
videotaped behavioral episodes of Leslie W
these interruptions may or may not be useful to them in performing their inbasket du
participants were primarily asked to focus on the inbasket materials,
the study’s research questions, while simultaneously being told that the videotaped depictions of
subordinate behavior (relevant information) cons
task. The videotaped behavioral information focused on a single employee, Bill Jensen, who
was the MIS director in the contracting office.
however, they were used only to add realism
which Bill Jensen was to perform.
Prior to conducting this experiment,
scene a) measured only its intended performance dimension (task performance, helping or voice)
and b) represented its intended level of effectiveness (high or low). First, each scene was tested
to ensure that the level of effectiveness
were designed such that effective performance episodes would result in scores of 6
point rating scale while ineffective performance episodes would yie
scale. A total of 28 participants were
videotapes and make ratings on the degree of effectiveness depicted in each scene.
of this test revealed average ratings of each scene
effective scene was scored much more highly than
Specifically, the mean ratings for the effective scenes were 5.94 (SD=1.03
5.5 (SD=1.05) for helping and 5.14 (SD=1.35) for voice, while the
ineffective scenes were 2.2 (SD=.86) for task performance, 1.64 (SD=1
(SD=.90) for voice. To examine whether the scenes used in this study captured only the intended
performance dimension, 10 MBA students
helping and voice. They were asked
scene classify the behavior shown
helping, c) voice or d) other. They were instructed to categorize a scene as “other” if they
believed, for example, that the scene might contain elements of multiple dimensions (i.e., the
scene reflected both voice and ta
performance, voice or helping. Results showed that raters correctly classi
98% of the time and both helping and voice were each classified correctly 88% of the time.
Overall, the results of these pilot tests
both depicted clearly what each was
and accurately portrayed the level of effectiveness desired (high or low
Experimental Conditions
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
As Leslie Wilder, they were provided with multiple tasks to complete. These tasks included
dealing with angry customers, responding to various employee needs and
requests, filling out expense reports, reviewing company policies and procedures, etc. The
consisted of far more than students could complete in the time allowed and they were
it as they would if they were Leslie Wilder. The ambiguity of
as well as the prioritizing required to work through the inbasket, were designed to
closely approximate a typical manager’s duties in a realistic situation (Mero & Motowidlo,
While working on the inbasket materials, students were occasionally interrupted by
behavioral episodes of Leslie Wilder’s simulated subordinates. They were told that
may or may not be useful to them in performing their inbasket du
participants were primarily asked to focus on the inbasket materials, which were
research questions, while simultaneously being told that the videotaped depictions of
(relevant information) constituted an “interruption” from their primary
The videotaped behavioral information focused on a single employee, Bill Jensen, who
was the MIS director in the contracting office. Other simulated employees were also shown;
however, they were used only to add realism to the scenes and to help create the
which Bill Jensen was to perform.
Prior to conducting this experiment, a pair of pilot tests was conducted to ensu
scene a) measured only its intended performance dimension (task performance, helping or voice)
intended level of effectiveness (high or low). First, each scene was tested
the level of effectiveness of each scene was accurately portrayed.
were designed such that effective performance episodes would result in scores of 6
point rating scale while ineffective performance episodes would yield scores of 1
were recruited and they were asked to watch a subset
videotapes and make ratings on the degree of effectiveness depicted in each scene.
of this test revealed average ratings of each scene consistent with what was expected
effective scene was scored much more highly than its corresponding ineffective scene
he mean ratings for the effective scenes were 5.94 (SD=1.03) for task performance,
5.5 (SD=1.05) for helping and 5.14 (SD=1.35) for voice, while the mean ratings for the
ineffective scenes were 2.2 (SD=.86) for task performance, 1.64 (SD=1.05) for helping and 2.37
To examine whether the scenes used in this study captured only the intended
10 MBA students were trained on the definitions of task performance,
voice. They were asked to watch the videotaped vignettes and in response to each
behavior shown as being a clear depiction of either a) task performance, b)
helping, c) voice or d) other. They were instructed to categorize a scene as “other” if they
, for example, that the scene might contain elements of multiple dimensions (i.e., the
scene reflected both voice and task performance) or if the scene was not illustrative of task
performance, voice or helping. Results showed that raters correctly classified task performance
and both helping and voice were each classified correctly 88% of the time.
Overall, the results of these pilot tests confirmed that the videotaped scenes used in this study
d clearly what each was intended to measure (task performance, helping or voice)
and accurately portrayed the level of effectiveness desired (high or low).
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 6
As Leslie Wilder, they were provided with multiple tasks to complete. These tasks included
responding to various employee needs and
requests, filling out expense reports, reviewing company policies and procedures, etc. The total
d and they were
. The ambiguity of
were designed to
(Mero & Motowidlo,
While working on the inbasket materials, students were occasionally interrupted by
They were told that
may or may not be useful to them in performing their inbasket duties. Thus,
which were not relevant to
research questions, while simultaneously being told that the videotaped depictions of
tituted an “interruption” from their primary
The videotaped behavioral information focused on a single employee, Bill Jensen, who
Other simulated employees were also shown;
he work context in
a pair of pilot tests was conducted to ensure that each
scene a) measured only its intended performance dimension (task performance, helping or voice)
intended level of effectiveness (high or low). First, each scene was tested
h scene was accurately portrayed. All scenes
were designed such that effective performance episodes would result in scores of 6-7 on a 7-
scores of 1-2 on the same
they were asked to watch a subset of
videotapes and make ratings on the degree of effectiveness depicted in each scene. The results
consistent with what was expected; each
ffective scene.
for task performance,
mean ratings for the
.05) for helping and 2.37
To examine whether the scenes used in this study captured only the intended
on the definitions of task performance,
atch the videotaped vignettes and in response to each
being a clear depiction of either a) task performance, b)
helping, c) voice or d) other. They were instructed to categorize a scene as “other” if they
, for example, that the scene might contain elements of multiple dimensions (i.e., the
was not illustrative of task
ask performance
and both helping and voice were each classified correctly 88% of the time.
used in this study
(task performance, helping or voice)
A total of eight experimental conditions were created for this study. These conditions
were formed by crossing two levels of voice (high and low) with two levels of helping (high and
low) by two levels of task performance (high
one experimental condition. Rater
Each condition contained a total of six videotaped depictions of
effective task performance condition
performance (i.e., installing a new computer component)
condition Bill Jensen was shown handling the same situation
the computer component correctly)
in two scenes while in the unhelpfulness condition
situations. For example, in one scene Bill Jensen is confronted with a coworker who has a
personal problem. In the effective condition, Bill is depicted as volunteering to help
ineffective condition Bill does not help and admonishes the coworker for bringing his personal
problems to work. Finally, the effective voice condition showed Bill Jensen engaging in
constructive challenge in two scenes and in the ineffective voice condition Bill Jensen was
depicted as handling the same situation
depict effective voice, Bill challenges the company’s long
pool of suppliers to only U.S. owned firms. In the ineffective scene, Bill notes the policy, states
that he has some thoughts on it, but has decided to “keep
want to “rock the boat.” At the conclusion of the experimental simulation, participants were then
asked to rate Bill Jensen on task performance, helping and voice (as a manipulation check) as
well as make reward recommendations about him.
Measures
Reward recommendations
(totally unsuitable) to 7 (extremely suitable
from Kiker and Motowidlo (1999).
recommendations for compensation increases, three
promotion, while the final three asked participants about the subordinate’s readiness to
participate in a fast-track development program
.97. The measure of perceived helpfulness (included as a manipulation check) was adopted from
Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996).
(extremely ineffective) to 7 (extremely effective) where participants
Jensen on various helpful behaviors. These included such activities as helping others without
being asked, the degree to which he treats others fair
make others feel good about themselves
Finally, the task performance measure
Motowidlo (1999) was employed in this study.
from 1 to 7 (extremely ineffective to extremely effective) in performing
routine maintenance work, training others in the use of new technology and operating equipment.
Its internal consistency estimate was .9
definition offered by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A
ranged from 1 (extremely ineffective
effectiveness in performing such activities as ma
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
A total of eight experimental conditions were created for this study. These conditions
ormed by crossing two levels of voice (high and low) with two levels of helping (high and
low) by two levels of task performance (high and low). Each participant was assigned to only
Rater reward recommendations represented the dependent variable.
Each condition contained a total of six videotaped depictions of employee behavior. In the
condition, Bill Jensen was shown engaging in effective
(i.e., installing a new computer component) in two scenes while in the ineffective
condition Bill Jensen was shown handling the same situations ineffectively (i.e., failing to install
the computer component correctly). The helpful condition consisted of Bill Jensen
the unhelpfulness condition Bill Jensen was being unhelpful in the same
For example, in one scene Bill Jensen is confronted with a coworker who has a
ctive condition, Bill is depicted as volunteering to help
ineffective condition Bill does not help and admonishes the coworker for bringing his personal
Finally, the effective voice condition showed Bill Jensen engaging in
constructive challenge in two scenes and in the ineffective voice condition Bill Jensen was
depicted as handling the same situations ineffectively. For example, in one scene designed t
depict effective voice, Bill challenges the company’s long-standing policy of restricting their
pool of suppliers to only U.S. owned firms. In the ineffective scene, Bill notes the policy, states
that he has some thoughts on it, but has decided to “keep his mouth closed” because he didn’t
At the conclusion of the experimental simulation, participants were then
asked to rate Bill Jensen on task performance, helping and voice (as a manipulation check) as
endations about him.
Reward recommendations were measured on a 7-point anchored scale ranging from 1
(totally unsuitable) to 7 (extremely suitable). The scale consisted of nine items
from Kiker and Motowidlo (1999). Three of the nine items were designed to tap into
recommendations for compensation increases, three others tapped into assessing suitabi
asked participants about the subordinate’s readiness to
development program. Its internal consistency reliability estimate was
.97. The measure of perceived helpfulness (included as a manipulation check) was adopted from
(1996). This was also a 7-point anchored scale ranging from 1
(extremely ineffective) to 7 (extremely effective) where participants were asked to rate Bill
on various helpful behaviors. These included such activities as helping others without
being asked, the degree to which he treats others fairly and the extent to which he says things to
make others feel good about themselves. Its internal consistency reliability estimate was .94.
he task performance measure (included as a manipulation check) used in
) was employed in this study. It asks subjects to rate Bill Jensen’s effectiveness
from 1 to 7 (extremely ineffective to extremely effective) in performing such activities as
routine maintenance work, training others in the use of new technology and operating equipment.
Its internal consistency estimate was .95. Finally, the voice measure was adopted from the
Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A 7-point scale was used which
extremely ineffective) to 7 (extremely effective) to assess Bill Jensen’s
effectiveness in performing such activities as making innovative suggestions for change,
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 7
A total of eight experimental conditions were created for this study. These conditions
ormed by crossing two levels of voice (high and low) with two levels of helping (high and
and low). Each participant was assigned to only
represented the dependent variable.
employee behavior. In the
n was shown engaging in effective task
in two scenes while in the ineffective
(i.e., failing to install
Bill Jensen being helpful
being unhelpful in the same
For example, in one scene Bill Jensen is confronted with a coworker who has a
ctive condition, Bill is depicted as volunteering to help while in the
ineffective condition Bill does not help and admonishes the coworker for bringing his personal
Finally, the effective voice condition showed Bill Jensen engaging in
constructive challenge in two scenes and in the ineffective voice condition Bill Jensen was
in one scene designed to
standing policy of restricting their
pool of suppliers to only U.S. owned firms. In the ineffective scene, Bill notes the policy, states
his mouth closed” because he didn’t
At the conclusion of the experimental simulation, participants were then
asked to rate Bill Jensen on task performance, helping and voice (as a manipulation check) as
point anchored scale ranging from 1
and was adopted
items were designed to tap into
tapped into assessing suitability for
asked participants about the subordinate’s readiness to
Its internal consistency reliability estimate was
.97. The measure of perceived helpfulness (included as a manipulation check) was adopted from
ranging from 1
were asked to rate Bill
on various helpful behaviors. These included such activities as helping others without
ly and the extent to which he says things to
Its internal consistency reliability estimate was .94.
used in Kiker and
It asks subjects to rate Bill Jensen’s effectiveness
such activities as
routine maintenance work, training others in the use of new technology and operating equipment.
measure was adopted from the
was used which again
to assess Bill Jensen’s
king innovative suggestions for change,
expressing constructive challenge intended
modifications to standard procedures. Its internal consistency reliability was .96.
RESULTS
First, the effectiveness with which the experimental conditions created successfully
varied the levels of task performance, helping and voice as intended
accomplish this, a series of analysis of variance (ANOVA)
task performance as the dependent variable, once with helping as
another with ratings of voice as the dependent variable.
showed that the videotaped depictions of
performance, F (1, 208) = 483.3,
helpfulness had a strong effect on ratings of helpfulness, F (1, 208) = 81.42, p<.05,
Finally, the videotaped depictions
39.9, p<.05, E2=.16. Manipulated task performance
(N2=.05) also had a significant effe
these effects are much smaller than those of the
raters take into account some sense of overall contribution when making ratings about
dimensions of employee performance.
means showed that ratings increased with increases in manipulated task performance, helpfulness
and voice. Taken together, these findings provide evidenc
manipulations used in this study
Effects on Reward Recommendations
To test the hypotheses regarding the effect of task performance, helping and voice on
reward recommendations, a 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVA that crossed 2 levels of task performance, 2
levels of helping and 2 levels of voice
reward recommendations score.
performance, F (1, 208) = 132.35, p<.05, N
helpfulness F (1,208) = 6.41, p<.05, N
manipulated voice was also significant, F= 12.80, p<.05, N
for hypotheses 1-3. The pattern of means, as indicated in
demonstrate that task performance, helping and voice
recommendations. The results did not show a
finding is inconsistent with those reported
al. (2008), who both showed that nontask performance behaviors significantly interacted with
task performance in determining
respectively.
DISCUSSION
The results reported here provide
reward recommendations. It seems that voice contri
above the significant contributions of both task performance and helpfulness
rewards are allocated to those who demonstrate effectiveness in all three dimensions.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
constructive challenge intended to improve the organization, and recommending
modifications to standard procedures. Its internal consistency reliability was .96.
First, the effectiveness with which the experimental conditions created successfully
task performance, helping and voice as intended was examined. To
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, once with
task performance as the dependent variable, once with helping as the dependent variable and
with ratings of voice as the dependent variable. Results of this manipulation check
showed that the videotaped depictions of task performance had a strong effect on ratings of task
performance, F (1, 208) = 483.3, p<.05, E2=.70. Similarly, the videotaped depictions of
pfulness had a strong effect on ratings of helpfulness, F (1, 208) = 81.42, p<.05,
the videotaped depictions of voice had a strong effect on ratings of voice,
=.16. Manipulated task performance (N2=.06) and manipulated helpfulness
=.05) also had a significant effect on ratings of voice behavior; however, the magnitude of
e much smaller than those of the voice manipulation. This finding suggests t
raters take into account some sense of overall contribution when making ratings about
dimensions of employee performance. As expected, for each manipulation check, t
that ratings increased with increases in manipulated task performance, helpfulness
hese findings provide evidence that the videotaped behavioral
successfully varied the conditions in the way that was
ecommendations
regarding the effect of task performance, helping and voice on
X 2 X 2 ANOVA that crossed 2 levels of task performance, 2
levels of helping and 2 levels of voice was conducted. The dependent variable was the overall
reward recommendations score. Results showed a significant main effect of manipulated task
formance, F (1, 208) = 132.35, p<.05, N2=.39 and a significant main effect for manipulated
F (1,208) = 6.41, p<.05, N2=.03 on reward recommendations. The effect of
manipulated voice was also significant, F= 12.80, p<.05, N2=.06. These results provide
of means, as indicated in Table 1 (Appendix), further
ormance, helping and voice each have a main effect on rater reward
The results did not show a two-way or three-way interaction effect
finding is inconsistent with those reported by Kiker & Motowidlo (1999) as well as
who both showed that nontask performance behaviors significantly interacted with
task performance in determining reward recommendations and overall performance assessments,
The results reported here provide evidence of a positive impact of voice
It seems that voice contributes to these reward decisions over and
the significant contributions of both task performance and helpfulness and that more
rewards are allocated to those who demonstrate effectiveness in all three dimensions.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 8
to improve the organization, and recommending
modifications to standard procedures. Its internal consistency reliability was .96.
First, the effectiveness with which the experimental conditions created successfully
was examined. To
, once with ratings of
the dependent variable and
Results of this manipulation check
d a strong effect on ratings of task
the videotaped depictions of
pfulness had a strong effect on ratings of helpfulness, F (1, 208) = 81.42, p<.05, E2=.28.
voice had a strong effect on ratings of voice, F (1, 208) =
=.06) and manipulated helpfulness
however, the magnitude of
This finding suggests that
raters take into account some sense of overall contribution when making ratings about
As expected, for each manipulation check, the pattern of
that ratings increased with increases in manipulated task performance, helpfulness
videotaped behavioral
conditions in the way that was intended.
regarding the effect of task performance, helping and voice on
X 2 X 2 ANOVA that crossed 2 levels of task performance, 2
dependent variable was the overall
effect of manipulated task
a significant main effect for manipulated
. The effect of
provide support
further
main effect on rater reward
way interaction effect. This
by Kiker & Motowidlo (1999) as well as Whiting, et
who both showed that nontask performance behaviors significantly interacted with
and overall performance assessments,
voice on supervisory
butes to these reward decisions over and
and that more
rewards are allocated to those who demonstrate effectiveness in all three dimensions. Thus, all
three classes of behavior are valued
decisions. Also, unlike the results from Kiker and Motowidlo (1999
in this study, no interaction effect was found. This suggests that
performance, helping, and voice behaviors
the organization. This finding is also consistent with the conceptualization of job perfor
offered by Motowidlo and his colleagues, who argue that the
behavioral, such as task performance, should not have any bearing on the contribution value of
other behaviors (i.e., helping) performed
1997). The results reported here
they diverge from those of recent research (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Whiting, et al., 2008).
Perhaps the most significant finding of this
helping and task performance, contributes independently
recommendations. In fact, the magnitude of the effect of voice
of helpfulness. This finding highlights the potential importance of employee voice as an
important component of job performance
today’s organizations face and the fact that employee voice might help the manager do a better
job, perhaps the usefulness of change
(Whiting, et.al, 2008). However, given the paucity of empirical research on the topic relative to
that of helpfulness, the results reported here suggest that
understanding the predictors and effects of employee voice in today’s organizations. Res
on employee voice is gaining momentum and these
this overlooked class of employee behavior will yield fruitful results. The research reported here
extends previous research which has already demonstrated t
performance, helping and voice on contributions of employee worth to organizations as
measured by overall assessments of employee job performance (Whiting, et al., 2008) in two
primary ways. First, the contribution of these behav
allocation of valuable rewards was
indicator like a measure of overall
steps undertaken to make the rating environ
generalizability of the results is enhanced
studies could be significantly enhanced by creating conditions that more closely approximate the
conditions under which real managers make real decisions. To accomplish this, they suggest that
researchers present raters with both relevant information related to the research questions as well
as irrelevant information, as this is the type of environment that is consistent with actual
workplace decision-making. In addition, t
ways to enhance the realism of the actual employee behaviors under investigation.
relying exclusively on the use of “paper people,” or written descriptions of employee behavior,
they suggest providing participants more opportunities to actually observe
absence of this, they suggest the use of videotaped dep
The experimental design used in this study is co
that videotaped depictions of employee behavior were used rather than written descriptions of
employee behavior. Further, participants in this study were told to focus primarily on the
inbasket materials (irrelevant information) while considering the videotaped vignettes (relevant
information) as mere “interruptions” that they also might consider.
themselves provided participants with plenty of rich, cognitively involving materials which kept
their attention. In fact, compared to the inbasket materials, the videotaped depiction
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
of behavior are valued and contribute independently reward recommendation
Also, unlike the results from Kiker and Motowidlo (1999) and Whiting, et al. (2008),
effect was found. This suggests that an individual’s discrete task
performance, helping, and voice behaviors contribute independently to his or her
This finding is also consistent with the conceptualization of job perfor
offered by Motowidlo and his colleagues, who argue that the contribution value of any particular
, such as task performance, should not have any bearing on the contribution value of
other behaviors (i.e., helping) performed by the same individual (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit,
reported here are true to this conceptualization of job performance, though
they diverge from those of recent research (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Whiting, et al., 2008).
most significant finding of this study is the finding that voice, along with
helping and task performance, contributes independently to supervisory reward
. In fact, the magnitude of the effect of voice in this study is greater than
of helpfulness. This finding highlights the potential importance of employee voice as an
important component of job performance. Given the dynamic nature of the environment that
today’s organizations face and the fact that employee voice might help the manager do a better
job, perhaps the usefulness of change-oriented behavior by employees is readily apparent
wever, given the paucity of empirical research on the topic relative to
the results reported here suggest that more attention should be given to
understanding the predictors and effects of employee voice in today’s organizations. Res
s gaining momentum and these results suggest that continued inquiry into
this overlooked class of employee behavior will yield fruitful results. The research reported here
extends previous research which has already demonstrated the unique effects of task
performance, helping and voice on contributions of employee worth to organizations as
measured by overall assessments of employee job performance (Whiting, et al., 2008) in two
primary ways. First, the contribution of these behaviors on managers’ decisions regarding
allocation of valuable rewards was directly measured as opposed to relying on an indirect
overall employee job performance. Second, due to the extreme
rating environment as realistic as possible, perhaps the
generalizability of the results is enhanced. Ilgen and Favero (1985) suggested that laboratory
studies could be significantly enhanced by creating conditions that more closely approximate the
conditions under which real managers make real decisions. To accomplish this, they suggest that
rs present raters with both relevant information related to the research questions as well
as irrelevant information, as this is the type of environment that is consistent with actual
In addition, they suggest that researchers should seek out more
realism of the actual employee behaviors under investigation.
relying exclusively on the use of “paper people,” or written descriptions of employee behavior,
they suggest providing participants more opportunities to actually observe behavior. In the
absence of this, they suggest the use of videotaped depictions of employee behavior.
The experimental design used in this study is consistent with these recommendations in
that videotaped depictions of employee behavior were used rather than written descriptions of
employee behavior. Further, participants in this study were told to focus primarily on the
information) while considering the videotaped vignettes (relevant
information) as mere “interruptions” that they also might consider. The inbasket materials
provided participants with plenty of rich, cognitively involving materials which kept
heir attention. In fact, compared to the inbasket materials, the videotaped depiction
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 9
reward recommendation
) and Whiting, et al. (2008),
an individual’s discrete task
contribute independently to his or her contribution to
This finding is also consistent with the conceptualization of job performance
contribution value of any particular
, such as task performance, should not have any bearing on the contribution value of
(Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit,
formance, though
they diverge from those of recent research (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999; Whiting, et al., 2008).
study is the finding that voice, along with
in this study is greater than that
of helpfulness. This finding highlights the potential importance of employee voice as an
n the dynamic nature of the environment that
today’s organizations face and the fact that employee voice might help the manager do a better
is readily apparent
wever, given the paucity of empirical research on the topic relative to
more attention should be given to
understanding the predictors and effects of employee voice in today’s organizations. Research
results suggest that continued inquiry into
this overlooked class of employee behavior will yield fruitful results. The research reported here
he unique effects of task
performance, helping and voice on contributions of employee worth to organizations as
measured by overall assessments of employee job performance (Whiting, et al., 2008) in two
decisions regarding
measured as opposed to relying on an indirect
employee job performance. Second, due to the extreme
ment as realistic as possible, perhaps the
. Ilgen and Favero (1985) suggested that laboratory
studies could be significantly enhanced by creating conditions that more closely approximate the
conditions under which real managers make real decisions. To accomplish this, they suggest that
rs present raters with both relevant information related to the research questions as well
as irrelevant information, as this is the type of environment that is consistent with actual
hould seek out more
realism of the actual employee behaviors under investigation. Rather than
relying exclusively on the use of “paper people,” or written descriptions of employee behavior,
behavior. In the
ictions of employee behavior.
nsistent with these recommendations in
that videotaped depictions of employee behavior were used rather than written descriptions of
employee behavior. Further, participants in this study were told to focus primarily on the
information) while considering the videotaped vignettes (relevant
The inbasket materials
provided participants with plenty of rich, cognitively involving materials which kept
heir attention. In fact, compared to the inbasket materials, the videotaped depictions of
subordinate behavior accounted for only a small percentage of the participants’ attention. It is
possible that past research, which provided
behavioral descriptions, focused
the case under more realistic conditions. The study reported here was designed to more closely
mimic the conditions under which manage
reported in this study, while compelling, are smaller in magnitude than other studies that test
similar constructs under less realistic
This study also contribute
from using supervisors’ ratings of task performance, h
these constructs directly. This avoids the possibility of any halo effects
high interrelationships among the dimensions. Second, while previous research has relied almost
exclusively on using supervisors’ assessments of employee job
variable in this study was instead
valued rewards. Third, this study adds to the growing literature on the importance of employee
voice as an important component of
reported here show that voice behavior explains variability in managerial
recommendations over and above that explained by the more traditional predictors of task
performance and helping.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship
performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory
Psychology, 83, 247–260.
Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M
L.Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N.Schmitt & W.Borman (Eds.),
organizations (pp. 71–98). New York: Jossey
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1
interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings.
Psychology, 80, 168–177.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of
employee voice. International Journal of Human resource Management
1170.
Ilgen, D. R., & Favero, J. L. (1985). Limits in generalization from psychological research to
performance appraisal processes.
Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking
motives as mediators of the relationships between
behaviors, and raters’ reward recommendations
815.
Kiker, D. S., Motowidlo, S. J. (1999).
performance on supervisory
(4), 602-609.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
subordinate behavior accounted for only a small percentage of the participants’ attention. It is
past research, which provided only relevant information in the form of written
participant attention on these materials more so than
the case under more realistic conditions. The study reported here was designed to more closely
mimic the conditions under which managers actually make decisions. Interestingly, the results
while compelling, are smaller in magnitude than other studies that test
constructs under less realistic conditions (cf. Werner, 1994; Whiting, et al., 2008).
contributes to the literature in several ways, starting with moving away
from using supervisors’ ratings of task performance, helping, and voice and instead manipulating
these constructs directly. This avoids the possibility of any halo effects resulting in artifactually
high interrelationships among the dimensions. Second, while previous research has relied almost
exclusively on using supervisors’ assessments of employee job performance, the dependent
variable in this study was instead managers’ inclinations to recommend their subordinate for
study adds to the growing literature on the importance of employee
voice as an important component of an employee’s contribution to an organizatio
show that voice behavior explains variability in managerial reward
over and above that explained by the more traditional predictors of task
Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
260.
Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D.Dunnette &
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N.Schmitt & W.Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
98). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and
interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied
177.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of
International Journal of Human resource Management
Ilgen, D. R., & Favero, J. L. (1985). Limits in generalization from psychological research to
performance appraisal processes. Academy of Management Review, 10, 311
D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of
motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful
reward recommendations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
Kiker, D. S., Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of task and contextual
performance on supervisory reward recommendations. Journal of Applied Psychology
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 10
subordinate behavior accounted for only a small percentage of the participants’ attention. It is
rm of written
participant attention on these materials more so than might be
the case under more realistic conditions. The study reported here was designed to more closely
ingly, the results
while compelling, are smaller in magnitude than other studies that test
conditions (cf. Werner, 1994; Whiting, et al., 2008).
the literature in several ways, starting with moving away
elping, and voice and instead manipulating
resulting in artifactually
high interrelationships among the dimensions. Second, while previous research has relied almost
the dependent
recommend their subordinate for
study adds to the growing literature on the importance of employee
contribution to an organization. The results
reward
over and above that explained by the more traditional predictors of task
behavior on
Journal of Applied
. D.Dunnette &
(pp. 271–326).
Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
Personnel selection in
995). Effects of ratee task performance and
Journal of Applied
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of
International Journal of Human resource Management, 15:6, 1149-
Ilgen, D. R., & Favero, J. L. (1985). Limits in generalization from psychological research to
, 311–321.
and attributions of
individuals’ reputations, helpful
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 808–
Main and interaction effects of task and contextual
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative
contextual performance: Evidence of differential
characteristics and cognitive ability.
Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (198
employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performanc
57, 70–80.
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and
favorability of performance ratings.
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (
task and contextual performance.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Park, O.S., & Sims, H.P. (1989, August).
and affect in managerial judgment
Management Meetings, Washington, DC.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applie
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra
construct and predictive validity.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Evidence
performance: Job dedication and interpersonal facilitation.
Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in
extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings.
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of
voice, and organizational
Psychology, 93 (1), 125-139.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326
Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of
The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183–193.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons'
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and
favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 517
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1977). A theory of individual differences in
task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology
Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Park, O.S., & Sims, H.P. (1989, August). Beyond cognition in leadership: Prosocial
and affect in managerial judgment. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of
Management Meetings, Washington, DC.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (4), 653–663.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Evidence for two factors of contextual
performance: Job dedication and interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied
531.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in
role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology
Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance,
rganizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied
139.
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 11
contrasting forms of
relationships with Big Five personality
326–336.
7). Behind the mask: The politics of
193.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and
evaluations of salespersons'
50, 123–150.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational
Journal of Marketing,
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and
, 517–524.
1977). A theory of individual differences in
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
d Psychology, 79, 475–480.
Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Beyond cognition in leadership: Prosocial behavior
. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
behaviors: Evidence of
108–119.
for two factors of contextual
Journal of Applied
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98–107.
erformance, helping,
Journal of Applied
APPENDIX
Table 1
Reward Decision Means
______________________________________________________________________________
Manipulation
________________________
Condition Task Helping
_____________________________________________
1 High High
2 High High
3 High Low
4 High Low
5 Low High
6 Low High
7 Low Low
8 Low Low
______________________________________________________________________________
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page
______________________________________________________________________________
Manipulation Reward Score
_______________________________ __________________________
Helping Voice M
______________________________________________________________________________
High High 40.55
High Low 35.46
Low High 36.48
Low Low 31.35
High High 24.33
High Low 18.60
Low High 20.48
Low Low 16.58
______________________________________________________________________________
Journal of Management and Marketing Research
Constructive Challenge: Employee Voice, Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________
Reward Score
__________________________
SD
_________________________________
8.60
10.72
10.61
13.75
10.35
6.16
10.62
7.08
______________________________________________________________________________